RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03726
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In two separate applications, applicant makes the following requests:

The Duty Title on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 30 Jul 98 through 1 Apr 99 be corrected to reflect “ABCCC Enhancements Officer and EC-130E Pilot.”

The duty description in Block III of his OPR rendered for the period 30 Jul 98 through 1 Apr 99 be amended to add at the beginning “Oversees software installation and hardware configuration of ABCCC mission systems and training facilities.”  Delete the line “SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL DUTY:  ABCCC Enhancements Officer.”

The Duty Title on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Apr 00 through 30 Mar 01 be corrected to reflect “Chief of Life Support and EC-130E Pilot.”

The duty description in Block III of his OPR rendered for the period 2 Apr 00 through 30 Mar 01 be amended to replace the section that reads, “Manages all aspects of squadron plans, exercises, and contingency mission planning.  Develops briefs, maintains, coordinates, and monitors all war, exercise, support, contingency, and programming plans to support the wing’s mission.  Supervises two NCOs and one airman executing plans and exercise duties.  Replace the section with “Manages $90K annual facilities, equipment, and training budget supporting 230 combat aircrew.  Instructs normal and emergency life support-related procedures and maintains life support training currencies for all squadron and attached personnel.  Coordinates equipment upgrades.  Supervises three NCOs and five airmen.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In support of his appeal, applicant provides copies of his earlier appeals that were denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), copies of the contested OPRs, and statements from his additional rater validating the changes to the duty titles and descriptions.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of captain.  His Total Active Federal Active Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 15 Oct 92.  The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to major by the CY02B Central Major Selection Board (3 Oct 02).  On 30 Aug 02, the applicant filed a similar appeal with the ERAB.  The ERAB denied the applicant’s appeal on 16 Oct 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO recommends that the applicant’s requests be denied.  They support the earlier decisions of the ERAB.  There is not sufficient justification to change duty titles along with supporting key duties, tasks, and responsibilities.  A retrospective view by raters after a report is rendered does not make the original assessment and comments inaccurate.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  There are no errors or injustices cited in the 1 Apr 99 OPR.  They fully concur with the ERAB’s decision.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 24 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/DPPPE and AFPC/DPPPO provided additional Air Force evaluations.

AFPC/DPPPE in their original evaluation only addressed the applicant’s OPR closing 1 Apr 99.  In the revised advisory, they address both the OPR closing 1 Apr 99 and 30 Mar 01.  They recommend denial of the applicant’s requests regarding both reports.  There rationale is the same as stated in the earlier evaluation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPPO provided an additional evaluation to address whether the applicant should be considered for promotion by SSB.

They recommend denial of the applicant’s consideration for promotion by SSB.  The applicant is being considered for promotion by the SSB convening on 19 May 03 due to the omission of his bachelor degree and incorrect professional military education data on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the additional Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 May for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has been received.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-03726 in Executive Session on 2 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 02, w/atchs;
                DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAO, dated 16 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 9 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jan 03.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 May 03.
    Exhibit G.  AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 May 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.